are check-dfsg-status and vrms effective programs?
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
https://packages.debian.org/source/bookworm/check-dfsg-status
Do you know if check-dfsg-status and vrms are
good at identifying non free packages, including
non free firmware? Thank you.
As the new name (check-dfsg-status) says, that program lists packages installed with APT (nothing more) that are nonfree according to the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). They are different from the GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines (GNU FSDG). For that reason, the new name is much welcome. For instance, check-dfsg-status tags the GNU documentation under the GNU Free Documentation License as nonfree, whereas RMS (Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project) obviously deems that documentation free.
I've resolved this dilemma for myself by creating the vap program - virtual andyprough. It will not allow me to use any package that is not a) GPL licensed, and b) written in the COW programming language. So my laptop can't really do much of anything but it sits on my desk and in an annoyed voice moo-MOo-moO-mOo's at me.
At least you are free to tune the moos.
You could even get it to moo the free software song.
My COWs prefer the heavy metal version (2.0) of the Free Software Song - https://piped.kavin.rocks/watch?v=Gv7PlyR5xrY
I don't know why, but for some reason they are hard rocking COWs.
When they are feeling more mellow and meditative they prefer the steam punk version: https://piped.kavin.rocks/watch?v=sYKXNCMNo2E
And, like all of us, they occasionally are more in the mood for the blues version: https://piped.kavin.rocks/watch?v=HTws29AlO5s
Or what COW could resist the prog rock version? https://piped.kavin.rocks/watch?v=kC-LjLqC4Ts
or the electronica version? https://piped.kavin.rocks/watch?v=u1c2kf39iHg
They aren't big fans of the death metal version for some reason: https://piped.kavin.rocks/watch?v=j1sfY5CVtwM
But this enthusiastic live French metal version gets a hearty moOoOO from them every time: https://piped.kavin.rocks/watch?v=uwXjnRLbfVo
vrms and check-dfsg-status does not find all
non free software.
Command vrms -s and check-dfsg-status -s
does not return firmware-linux-nonfree firmware-misc-nonfree.
apt search firmware lists among other
packets firmware-linux-nonfree firmware-misc-nonfree
which I assume is non free software. Maybe there
is more non free software that vrms and
check-dfsg-status does not find.
>"Command vrms -s and check-dfsg-status -s does not return firmware-linux-nonfree firmware-misc-nonfree"
vrms has always found those packages when I've tried it on distros that have them. I don't use the -s (sparse) option - maybe you shouldn't be using that?
> you shouldn't be using that?
man vrms says you can.
Command vrms makes no difference. It also returns
firmware-misc-nonfree and intel-microcode.
When you tested command vrms on
a system, did you also test
apt search non or
apt search firmware?
Yes, but I prefer "apt list | grep" over "apt search" if I'm looking for package names:
apt list | grep firmware
apt list | grep non
apt list | grep free
Like that. It returns much cleaner and easier to read results.
'apt search' also searches the descriptions that 'apt list' does not include.
>"'apt search' also searches the descriptions that 'apt list' does not include"
Yes, which is why I said I use 'apt list | grep' when I'm looking through package names. And also why I said it gives cleaner results. Digging through 'apt search' results can get messy because of the fact it's returning results from package descriptions.
Not saying I don't ever use "apt search" - sometimes you have to.
A nice way to browse through all of the installed packages is to put them in a file that you can read later in a text editor:
apt list | grep installed>AptInstalledList.txt
Then you can look for weird things where you need to hunt down a license. antiX, for instance, has a lot of oddly named home-brewed programs where I have to track down the license information.
Yes, which is why I said I use 'apt list | grep' when I'm looking through package names.
I was only explaining to other readers the difference between the lists of packages output by the two commands.
apt list | grep installed
You can write apt list --installed. It has the advantages of being a little faster to write, to execute, to work whatever the locale, and to not keep packages with "installed" in their names (Trisquel's repository contains no such package).
>"apt list --installed"
Nice!
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios